Date: No preference
GMT Start: 6pm at the earliest (that's 10am on the west coast, right?)
Map Rotation: Sharqi, Mashtuur, Karkand
GMT Start: 6pm at the earliest (that's 10am on the west coast, right?)
Map Rotation: Sharqi, Mashtuur, Karkand
Well, despite considerable doubts as to the seriousness and reliability of the source cited, I went ahead and read that article anyway. And it turns out I was right -- the ACLU's position is not the same as NAMBLA's. Read it for yourself and see.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
I don't know you tell me.spastic bullet wrote:
I could be wrong, but is that really the ACLU position -- that NAMBLA should "have a right to a relationship with a young adolescent"? I'm skeptical
Here is a snippethttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic … E_ID=18029The American Civil Liberties Union has asked a judge to dismiss what it calls an "unconstitutional" lawsuit against a national pedophile organization being sued in a wrongful death case after two of the group's members brutally raped and murdered a 10-year-old boy.
As reported in WorldNetDaily, Salvatore Sicari and Charles Jaynes picked up fifth-grader Jeffrey Curley and took the boy to the Boston Public Library where Jaynes accessed NAMBLA's website. Later, the men attempted to sexually assault Curley, but the boy fought back. Attempting to restrain him, Jaynes gagged the 10-year-old with a gasoline-soaked rag, eventually killing him. The men put Jeffrey's body in a tub with concrete and threw it in a river.
No, that would have been the focus of the $328 million dollar wrongful death case against the killers which, unless you have evidence to the contrary, the ACLU seem to have had no qualms about, and rightly so.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
HAHA maybe they are being sued because the two members KILLED a boy.But the ACLU believes NAMBLA is being unconstitutionally ''sued for their ideas."
I could be wrong, but is that really the ACLU position -- that NAMBLA should "have a right to a relationship with a young adolescent"? I'm skeptical, but open to any evidence you care to provide. The point I'm making is, when they break a law, by all means come down on them. Hard. But don't erode everybody's freedoms for the sake of a few twisted freaks. I apologize if I wasn't being sufficiently clear about that.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
No you can't ban someone from joining an organization based on their beliefs, hello the ACLU was founded by Communists, state your source.spastic bullet wrote:
I vote we go to war against molecules. You can't see them, but they're everywhere -- just waiting for the right moment. Never trust a molecule.
Regarding the ACLU, I don't know about the ins and outs of the specific cases mentioned above, but all those guys (the Westboro Baptists, NAMBLA, etc.), no matter how despicable, are like canaries in a mine shaft. If the gubmint can deny them civil liberties without due process, who is next?
Also, I think they specifically banned Communists from joining the ACLU in the 1940s, so there goes that theory.
NAMBLA should not have a RIGHT to have a relationship with a young adolescent, I don't know what do YOU think? Thats not really a civil liberty, having sex with a boy is not really a right many Amercians enjoy or would fight to protect.
That's pretty imaginative. Can you imagine this? How about this?Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Except they don't want peace. Radical Muslims refuse to live a moderate and civil lifestyle. I could honestly see them suicide bombing the construction sites if we were to attempt something like that.
That whole scenario sounds so familiar, but I can't quite remember why. Oh well...EVIL_STYX wrote:
That is a good theory, but I just don't see it happening. For one and I am no pro on nuclear devices, there would be plenty of little parts I am sure. But how are you going to get in the other parts. Like I said, what are they going to do hide it under there shirt. Do you have any idea what the current state of alertness is in the U.S.A? I can asure you it is very high! My OP was just making a funny!aardfrith wrote:
Just wondering but how tight is the border with Canada?EVIL_STYX wrote:
GunSlinger said: Against the U.S. the bombs might be delivered by terrorists, a method having the advantage of bearing no return address.
Gunslinger I am not flaming you at all, but how would you say the terrorist's would deliver said nuclear bombs with the current state of alertness in the U.S.A? Will they hide it under there shirt !
Just joining in!
EVIL_STYX OUT!!!
Aside from how to get something into the US, if I were planning on building and detonating a nuke in the USA, I'd break it down into its many constituent parts and disguise each as something inconspicuous. Each would be sent across the border from Canada to the USA individually over a long period of time, from a variety of addresses and to a variety of addresses. Bring them all together and assemble close to the target location.
Kind of a cross between The Fourth Protocol and the Tom Clancy book "The Sum of All Fears" - not the film, that was shit.
EVIL_STYX OUT!!!
If I'm reading you right, some of this is surprising to say the least...Pug wrote:
...
As far as the USS Liberty goes - I wrote a paper on it in college. It was an "accident". Although never proved, there is a theory that the spy ship got hit because it was spying on Israel. It probably was meant as a message to the US. This is no different than the U2 incident - a message not to spy on the home state.
... Sorry, I do not think Liberty is relevant because the US showed the aggression by spying on Israel. [...]
The US is a democracy, Pug. Lighten up.Pug wrote:
So to sum up - 1) Israel is an ally, 2) Boy that sucks.
Sarcasm, but I guess it could have been clearer. Apologies to normal Americans, if it wasn't immediately apparent.Kaosdad008 wrote:
- WTF?spastic bullet wrote:
American genocidal maniac.
Exactly. I stood up in the middle of Schindler's List and said the same thing before walking out. You should have seen all the crybabies looking at me like I was some kind of American genocidal maniac.Erkut.hv wrote:
I can sum it up in one word:
Waaahhh....
Please note: Sorry if I didn't make it clear enough on the rules of war thread, but I'm not the author. I only piped up to point out that BerkuT_gru's original post was slightly different from the apparent source, later cited by The_Shipbuilder. While I thank BerkuT_gru for bringing it to our attention, I can't agree with the subtle changes he either made himself, or seems to endorse, so I pasted the original text into the thread. Sorry for any confusion, and where applicable, thanks for keeping most of Western Europe warm for me and my folks the last couple thousand years -- you can have a week to pack and move along. Cheers and no hard feelings, eh?
Rule # 1: In the Middle East, it is always the Arabs that attack first, and it's always Israel who defends itself. This is called "retaliation".
Rule # 2: The Arabs, whether Palestinians or Lebanese, are not allowed to kill Israelis. This is called "terrorism".
Rule # 3: Israel has the right to kill Arab civilians; this is called "self-defense", or these days "collateral damage".
Rule # 4: When Israel kills too many civilians, the Western world calls for restraint. This is called the "reaction of the international community".
Rule # 5: Palestinians and Lebanese do not have the right to capture Israeli military, not even a limited number, not even 1 or 2.
Rule # 6: Israel has the right to capture as many Palestinians as they want (Palestinians: around 10000 to date, 300 of which are children, Lebanese: 1000s to date, being held without trial). There is no limit; there is no need for proof of guilt or trial. All that is needed is the magic word: "terrorism".
Rule # 7: When you say "Hezbollah", always be sure to add "supported by Syria and Iran".
Rule # 8: When you say "Israel", never say "supported by the USA, the UK and other European countries", for people (God forbid) might believe this is not an equal conflict.
Rule # 9: When it comes to Israel, don't mention the words "occupied territories", "UN resolutions", "Geneva conventions". This could distress the audience of Fox.
Rule # 10: Israelis speak better English than Arabs. This is why we let them speak out as much as possible, so that they can explain rules 1 through 9. This is called "neutral journalism".
Rule # 11: If you don't agree with these rules or if you favor the Arab side over the Israeli side, you must be a very dangerous anti-Semite. You may even have to make a public apology if you express your honest opinion (isn't democracy wonderful?).
That's exactly why having some "Democratic machines", and some "Republican machines" will not work either, because who's to say it won't just come down to who owns the most machines (again)?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
... The first statement in my last post was made to put voice to my doubts as to one party's honesty over another's.
Congrats. By bizarre coincidence, I ranked up to First Sergeant yesterday, myself. Got it on a C4ing of enemy artillery.CameronPoe wrote:
http://img467.imageshack.us/img467/5755 … 022mh4.png
Having finally achieved this major milestone I think it may be time for me to quietly phase myself out of all things BF2 related - including bf2s.com forums. I will of course drop in from time to time to say hello.
Hezbollah = 11% of all the seats in the Lebanese parliament. Of course, they'll probably do better in the next round of elections, because Israel is making them seem like "heroes".choongy wrote:
Im not sure if the number of civilian deaths = genocide. yet. And if the greter part of Lebanon's population support Hezbolla, then the bastards deserve to get what's coming. IM not sure i believe this talk of how Lebanese civilians are completely innocent, im sure they hate Israel just as much as Hezbollah. I'd like to know how Hezbollah became so powerful in the first place, they'd needed the support of the public right?
Source:BBC wrote:
...
Many Lebanese readily agree that Hezbollah gravely miscalculated when they captured those two Israeli soldiers on 12 July - but now they go on to say: "We were never Hezbollah. But we are all Hezbollah now. The Israeli response is completely unjustified."
I have met some who curse Hezbollah, and who say the Israeli bombardment is understandable. Some, but not many.
And I don't think "But we are all Hezbollah now" is just talk. The more Israel destroys, the more supporters Hezbollah will be able to recruit.
...
1. Are you the US? No? Then Israel doesn't care what you think.choongy wrote:
But why the hell would Israel want to bomb Un peacekeepers, especially with the international backlash? It doesnt make sense
This being a reference to CameronPoe's claims, it struck me that the diction didn't match the speaker, and that he might have been piggybacking. So I read back through the thread to a little before those comments, and lo and behold...ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
In that context i would surely hesitate to claim i handed someone their ass.
I suspect many Americans would be inclined to agree with that assessment...ATG wrote:
Britian was a world superpower and they got there arses handed to them twice here by the states with a fraction of the population.
Okay, I'm not the guy's lawyer, so this is the last I have to say about him and your as yet unfounded accusations of English-hating, but no, that quote does not make your point in any way. Find a quote where he's talking about how he feels about English people (not the British Empire) and I might change my mind.ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
In that context i would surely hesitate to claim i handed someone their ass. And its safe to assume imo that from camerons posts that he harbors ill feelings towards the English. In this very thread he claimsEaster sunday crap in his sig bragging about beating the English ..hes not really secretive about itCameronPoe wrote:
It must suck to have large swathes of people all across the world hate you.
Allah Akbar!!!! Allah Akbar!!!! Allah Akbar!!!!choongy wrote:
Create a muslim superstate? god forbid.Bubbalo wrote:
Actually, neither Hamas nor Hizballah take that line. They merely wish to kick Israel out of the Middle East. Even Al Qaeda's stated aim is merely to create a Muslim superstate.Sgt.Zubie wrote:
Until they decide not to kill all of us would be a start. You know the whole death to all infidels bit.
Calm down Mr Arabic-for-panties-in-a-bunch. What do you think the was for? I'm just keeeeeeeding about France and how they singlehandedly won your independence for you, mon ami.ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
Except it hasnt douchebag to this day Irish politiciains say the Oath of allegiance. So next time you chime in try to have a clue.
p.s. France played a minor role in the revolutionary war and none in 1812 so "France bascially does it for you" is just bullshit you wish were true in your half-frog country.
I have a checklist on my desk of "things to do before telling people all about their own country, which I myself clearly know next-to-fuckall about". It comes in handy. Here are items #1 and #2 from that list, for your reading pleasure...ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
Not exactly..Ireland is a self-governed dominion of the British Empire. The head of the Irish state is considered a British Monarch who has to take an Oath of allegiance.CameronPoe wrote:
Are 26 of our counties independent or aren't they?EveryIrishLeader wrote:
I do solemnly swear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State as by law established, and that I will be faithful to H.M. King George V, his heirs and successors by law in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and her adherence to and membership of the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of nations.
Anyway, now that it's too late for that, you might as well continue to harp on about how no country actually wins its independence from England unless France basically does it for you.1. Check to make sure that my information is NOT at least fifty years old.
2. If information is in fact at least fifty years old, make sure nothing has changed since then.
...
1. Is it only democracy if we approve of who they vote for, as well? Also, Hezbollah only currently hold 11% of the seats in the Lebanese parliament. Of course, they'll probably do better in the next round of elections, now that Israel has helped them look like heroes.Sondernkommando wrote:
What people are saying is: Israel should choose to let its own soldiers die rather than kill the Lebanese who:
1. Have Hezbollah as part of their government
2. Have Hezbollah as de facto government in the South
3. Have allowed Hezbollah to lob rockets at Israel for years and, now, kidnap Israelis off their own territory
That makes no sense to me.
Well, thanks for single-handedly restoring my faith in Christians... My apologies to you and any other Christian who was offended by my rash comment, especially if, like HM1{N}, you don't just blindly side with Israel whenever the opportunity arises. Mea culpa.HM1{N} wrote:
I'm one...spastic bullet wrote:
... I'll be honest -- I don't think a lot of Christians even try to be even-handed in this particular dispute. They almost always seem to want to side with Israel, no matter what the facts are. If anybody here is a Christian, good for you, but tell me so I know before we start discussing this.
Dude, this is like saying "where on the internets are there pictures of O RLY owls?!"Kolhozik wrote:
Please show me where in BIBLE does it say that Christianity is the only religion, and those who are not a scum of the earth?Ikarti wrote:
I'm not Muslim, but I know a number of them, and they are not hostile towards me nor demanding I convert. They have not tried to suicide bomb me. They just want to be left alone like everyone else.
I don't know what the Quran says exactly, but I know it's filled with contradictions, along with every other religious text.
Militant/extreme anything is a problem for all peace loving free people. The number of "crazy Christians who justify murder" is a matter of perspective. I wouldn't want anybody thinking GWB represents my religion.Sgt.Zubie wrote:
The Old Testament foretells the coming of Christ after that we have the New Testament where Christ teaches Love and Peace...spastic bullet wrote:
Anybody here ever read the Old Testament? Here's a nice little story, told through the universally, um... endearing medium of Lego people. Click on the arrows to go through the story -- it takes about 2 minutes if you read slow, like me.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is not a good basis for judging all Christians by. Even the ones who claim to believe the Bible is the unedited, unaltered, inerrant Word of God.
Jesus says love your enemies
Mohammad teaches kill your enemies
Are there crazy Christians who justify murder? Sure, there are some.
What's my point? Militant/extreme Islam is a problem for all peace loving free people.
Orion5413 wrote:
... Israel is just responding in kind....
spastic bullet, responding to the above, wrote:
...are you saying terrorism is justified, as a response to terrorism?
Think you're maybe putting words in my mouth a little, here. Just a little.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Yes, because a military invasion is exactly what terrorism is. Just like when the U.S. invaded Iraq.
Main Entry: ter·ror·ismOrion5413 wrote:
Then why have they not done anything about them? It is called total war....A general in the union army thought that if you break the will of the population the army will no longer fight. In this case Israel is taking the war to the people. If they don't like being bombed by Israel then they should not have let hezbola attack Israel in the first place....
And about as funny as cancer.iNeedUrFace4Soup wrote:
Dennis Miller is a moron.
LOL. "Israeli lovecopters freedom-explode Lebanese future terrorist, 5"CameronPoe wrote:
What's wrong with the wording? Are the vehicles used to do the bombing not warplanes? Would you not describe it as raiding or attacking? What do you want them to say? Israeli 'aircraft' self-defend themselves by dropping undisclosed items on Hezbollah targets?
Even FOX News (Zion News) words it....
"Israeli warplanes hit Beirut suburbs..." --FOX News, USA - Aug 3, 2006
Uhhhh... these aren't the American anti-semites you're looking for...Erkut.hv wrote:
When will people learn? Jews to anyone outside the US = Evil hook nosed zionist pigs.
PuckMercury's wet trout is a threat to us all.PuckMercury wrote:
the most effective propaganda uses fear and blame. The absolute best uses both in tandem.
Create an injustice
Generate fear that the injustice will negatively impact you/yours
Spoon feed who the culprit is
We always need someone to blame. Has to be that way. Shit doesn't just "happen". It's always someone's fault. We need to know who is at fault so we can point our fingers at them and beat them with sticks ... or a wet trout.
Propoganda utilizes these along with imagery designed to strike chords with the viewer. To your point, it is quite effective on the general populous.